er-introduction

Introduction Writing (er-introduction)

The introduction is the most important part of the entire paper. Reviewers have already formed 80% of their "reject" decisions by the time they finish reading the introduction. The introduction is not an abridged version of the literature review, but a persuasive short essay on "why this article is worth reading."

Trigger Timing

The first sentence begins with grand background phrases like "With the development of..." or "In recent years, our country..."
The first paragraph piles up literature and the real-world problem is nowhere in sight
Marginal contributions are written as "enriches related research" or "provides a new perspective"
After reading the introduction, one cannot tell what the paper's conclusion is (no spoilers)
The contribution items overlap with one another; 3 items are actually 1
"This paper is the first to" is used but cannot be substantiated

Standard Funnel Structure (Five-Paragraph Format)

The introduction of an 《经济研究》 paper is a funnel of "reality → gap → approach → contribution → structure," with each paragraph having one clear task:

Paragraph	Task	Key Point in One Sentence
Paragraph 1	Real-world importance / China context	Raise the real-world problem or policy conflict in the very first sentence; starting from a remote background is forbidden
Paragraph 2	Academic gap / literature tension	Whom you are in dialogue with and where existing research "falls short" — this is tension, not enumeration
Paragraph 3	Approach of this paper	Data + identification strategy + core finding spoiler in one sentence
Paragraph 4	3–5 marginal contributions	Each item independent and non-overlapping, relative to specific literature
Paragraph 5	Structure of the full paper	Explain the arrangement of the rest of the paper in one sentence

Judgment criterion: after deleting the author's name, the introduction can still convey "what real-world problem → why existing research is insufficient → what this paper does and what it finds → where it is stronger than whom."

How to Write the First Sentence (Hook)

The first sentence determines the reviewer's first impression. Key points:Open with a specific, tension-filled real-world Chinese problem or data fact, not with a concept definition or grand trend.

Bad Openings (clichéd openings immediately lose impression points)

❌ As China's economy enters the stage of high-quality development, ... ❌ In recent years, the digital economy has flourished and attracted widespread attention from academia. ❌ The labor market is an important field of economic research. ❌ Since reform and opening up, China's economy has achieved achievements that have attracted worldwide attention.

Good Openings (paradigms, choose any one)

Data-fact type: Open with a strongly contrasting number.

Between 2013 and 2019, China's industrial robot installations increased nearly 10-fold, yet manufacturing employment did not show a general decline over the same period. This contrast raises a question: how exactly has [mechanism] reshaped the labor market?
Policy-conflict type: Present a policy paradox.

[Policy A] is intended for [goal X], yet may produce consequences opposite to its original intent for [group Y].
Theoretical-controversy type: Point out two opposing predictions in the literature.

Regarding the impact of [variable X] on [outcome Y], there are theoretically two opposing predictions: one camp holds that..., while the other camp holds that.... Which force dominates is an empirical question awaiting an answer from Chinese data.
Reality-puzzle type(puzzle): present a phenomenon that "seems as though it should not occur yet does."

Under [constraint conditions], [phenomenon] should not have appeared, yet it is widespread in [the Chinese context].

Tell a good story: the research question must have tension

A question without tension = no story. The crux of the introduction is to make reviewers feel that "this question would be uncomfortable to leave unresolved." Three sources of tension:

Puzzle (reality paradox): the phenomenon contradicts intuition/theory.
Policy conflict: a policy's expected effect and actual effect may be opposite, or different groups may benefit in opposite ways.
Theory controversy: two bodies of literature give opposite predictions, requiring Chinese evidence to arbitrate.

Wrong: write the research question as "study the impact of X on Y"—this is a topic, not a story. Correct: write the research question as "under [tension], the direction of the net effect of X on Y is unclear; this paper uses [identification] to answer it."

Four-sentence template for marginal contributions

List 3–5marginal contributions. Each should attach to one dimension, not overlap with the others, and all mustrelative to specific literaturespeak—it cannot be empty talk such as "enriches / expands / supplements related research."

第一，理论维度：区别于[具体文献/作者，年份]从[旧视角]的解释，本文从[新视角/新机制]
       揭示了[关系]，为[理论命题]提供了[中国情境]证据。
第二，识别维度：相对于已有研究多采用[弱识别，如 OLS/简单 DID]，本文利用[外生冲击/
       工具变量/断点]构造[识别策略]，缓解了[具体内生性来源]。
第三，机制维度：本文不止于估计[总效应]，而是打开黑箱，识别出[机制 A]与[机制 B]，
       回答了[已有文献悬而未决的为什么]。
第四，政策意义维度：本文发现对[具体政策设计]具有直接含义——[谁应该做什么]，
       而非泛泛而谈"政策应予重视"。

Contrast:

❌ This paper enriches research on the digital economy. ✅ Unlike Zhang Xun et al. (2019), who analyze from the perspective of inclusive finance, this paper further isolates [mechanism], answering the question of "why the digital economy dividend is larger for low-income groups."

After writing each item, ask yourself: if this item were deleted, would the article's contribution really lose a piece? If the answer is no, delete it.

Division of labor with the abstract and literature review

The introduction ≠ an amplified version of the abstract: the abstract is a condensation of conclusions, while the introduction is the argument for "why it is worth doing." The introduction must haveproblem awarenessand a complete chain of persuasion.
The introduction ≠ an abbreviation of the literature review: the review systematically sorts out the genealogy (see er-literature-review); the introduction selects only thefew key worksthat directly dialogue with this paper, used to create tension and locate the gap. A 5–15-item in-text citation in the introduction is enough; do not seek completeness.
The introduction must spoil the conclusion: in paragraph 3, give the core finding in one sentence (direction + key magnitude); do not "keep readers in suspense." Reviewers hate reading to the end before learning the conclusion.

Citation conventions (hard norms of Economic Research Journal)

References use theauthor–year system; in-text citations are written as "(author, year[, page])", e.g., (Lin Yifu, 2007).

✅ Existing studies show that digital inclusive finance can promote inclusive growth (Zhang Xun et al., 2019).
❌ Existing studies show that......[12].
❌ A large body of literature focuses on this issue [27,28,29].
❌ Do not use [J]/[M]/[D] document type identifiers, and do not use sequential numbering.

Benchmark model essays (which indeed belong to Economic Research Journal and can be safely cited for study)

Wang Yongqin and Dong Wen, "How Does the Rise of Robots Affect China's Labor Market?" (Issue 10, 2020, Bartik IV) — a model of a data-fact opening plus a strong identification contribution.
Zhang Xun et al., "Digital Economy, Inclusive Finance, and Inclusive Growth" (Issue 8, 2019) — a model of real-world importance plus a mechanism contribution.
Liu Shenglong et al., "The Compulsory Education Law and Returns to Education in Urban China: Based on a Regression Discontinuity Design" (Issue 2, 2016) — a model of a policy shock plus a regression discontinuity identification contribution.

When reading the introductions of these three papers, focus on unpacking: how the first sentence is written, where the tension comes from, and how the contributions are anchored to specific literature.

Must-check list

Does the first sentence raise a specific real-world problem/data fact/policy conflict (rather than opening with boilerplate)?
Does the first paragraph focus on real-world importance, without piling up literature in advance?
Does the second paragraph present the tension in the literature (a dialogue), rather than listing who has studied what?
Does the third paragraph spoil the core finding in one sentence (direction + magnitude)?
Are the marginal contributions 3–5 items, each anchored to a different dimension, without overlapping?
Is each contribution made relative tospecific literature, rather than "enriching related research"?
If "this paper is the first to" is used, is there genuine support in identification/data/mechanism?
Does the fifth paragraph explain the structure of the full paper in one sentence?
Are all in-text citations throughout author–year style, with no numbered references?

Anti-patterns

Opening with a distant grand background ("With the development of..." "Since reform and opening up...")
Piling up literature in the first paragraph, with no real-world problem in sight
Writing contributions as empty phrases such as "enriches/expands related research"
The introduction does not spoil the conclusion at all, forcing reviewers to read the main text to learn the findings
Contribution items overlap with one another; 3 items are really 1 item in three different phrasings
Using "this paper is the first to" without support in identification/data/mechanism (reviewers will counter with evidence)
Writing the research question as "studying the effect of X on Y" — only a topic, no story
Writing the introduction as an abridged literature review, with no problem awareness

Output format

【五段漏斗合规】是 / 否（缺哪一段：现实 / 缺口 / 做法 / 贡献 / 结构）
【第一句类型】数据事实 / 政策冲突 / 理论争议 / 现实悖论 / 套话(需重写)
【故事张力】puzzle / policy conflict / theory controversy / 无(需补)
【剧透结论】有（第3段）/ 无(需补)
【边际贡献条数】X / 3–5
【贡献维度覆盖】理论 □ 识别 □ 机制 □ 政策 □
【空话贡献命中】[...]（如"丰富了相关研究"）
【引用格式】著者—出版年制 ✅ / 出现顺序编码 ❌(需改)
【下一步】er-literature-review